Research Papers: Gas Turbines: Controls, Diagnostics, and Instrumentation

A Way to Deal With Model-Plant Mismatch for a Reliable Diagnosis in Transient Operation

[+] Author and Article Information
S. Borguet

Turbomachinery Group, University of Liège, Chemin des Chevreuils 1, 4000 Liège, Belgiums.borguet@ulg.ac.be

P. Dewallef

Turbomachinery Group, University of Liège, Chemin des Chevreuils 1, 4000 Liège, Belgiump.dewallef@gmail.com

O. Léonard

Turbomachinery Group, University of Liège, Chemin des Chevreuils 1, 4000 Liège, Belgiumo.leonard@ulg.ac.be

Linearized models are often used to lower the computational burden.

In addition, νk and ϵk are assumed uncorrelated.

Note that another indicator of engine acceleration could be chosen, e.g., core acceleration.

A Brite/Euram project for on-board identification, diagnosis, and control of turbofan engine.

Recall that the engine is open loop, fuel flow piloted.

J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power 130(3), 031601 (Mar 26, 2008) (8 pages) doi:10.1115/1.2833491 History: Received June 20, 2006; Revised October 29, 2007; Published March 26, 2008

Least-squares health parameter identification techniques, such as the Kalman filter, have been extensively used to solve diagnosis problems. Indeed, such methods give a good estimate provided that the discrepancies between the model prediction and the measurements are zero-mean, white, Gaussian random variables. In a turbine engine diagnosis, however, this assumption does not always hold due to the presence of biases in the model. This is especially true for a transient operation. As a result, the estimated parameters tend to diverge from their actual values, which strongly degrades the diagnosis. The purpose of this contribution is to present a Kalman filter diagnosis tool where the model biases are treated as an additional random measurement error. The new methodology is tested on simulated transient data representative of a current turbofan engine configuration. While relatively simple to implement, the newly developed diagnosis tool exhibits a much better accuracy than the original Kalman filter in the presence of model biases.

Copyright © 2008 by American Society of Mechanical Engineers
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.



Grahic Jump Location
Figure 1

Health parameter and state variable update mechanism using a DEKF

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 2

Integration of the BCM

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 3

Turbofan layout with station numbering and health parameter location

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 4

Fuel flow profile for learning set generation

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 5

Model-plant mismatch

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 6

Mean bias extraction for T3

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 7

Fuel flow profile, test bench conditions

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 8

Diagnosis with BCM disabled

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 9

Diagnosis with BCM enabled

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 10

Diagnosis with hybrid BCM

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 11

Fuel flow profile, cruise conditions

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 12

Diagnosis with the corrected BCM, cruise conditions




Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In